Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas referred in a book he published entitled "Coups et blessures" (Assaults and Injuries), that "The "Israelis" are doing whatever they want in France, and are controlling the French Intelligence with what serves them".

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas referred in a book he published entitled "Coups et blessures" (Assaults and Injuries), that "The "Israelis" are doing whatever they want in France, and are controlling the French Intelligence with what serves them".

On another hand, Dumas confirmed that the "Israelis" are mistaken not to negotiate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even if the latter refuses any kind of agreement. He also added, "I made some special relations with him [Bashar al-Assad] like those I had with his father (President Hafez Assad)".
Furthermore, Dumas revealed in the same book that when current Zionist President, Shimon Perez was still the entity's Foreign Minister, he advised Dumas to pay President Hafez Assad a visit in 1992. At that time Perez was aware that the US is seeking a new way to understanding with Damascus, so he [Perez] believed that France could also gain interest through being involved in the Middle East peace process.

In this context, Former French Minister added, "The deceased Syrian President had little faith in Perez, and he knew the mazes of the internal "Israeli" relations". Hafez al-Assad was aware that the "Israeli" Foreign Minister might adopt unilateral initiatives, and therefore it won't lead into anything effective".

In his "Coups et blessures", Dumas also mentioned the Islamic Republic of Iran, which he had visited several times and met its former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Wilayati, and former President Hachemi Rafsanjani. Dumas strictly affirmed, "The Iranian atomic bomb is in my view similar to the weapons of mass destruction possessed by former Iraqi President Sadam Hussein, i.e. I don't believe in all of that. I believe that all what occurred was a misleading of facts". He also referred to that, "The confusion in the French policies goes back to known interferences, where "Israel's" close presence makes all analysis suspicious".

On the same level, Dumas defended the Iranian point of view regarding the need to possess nuclear energy reactors, where its oil reserve might not last for more than 60 years. He confirmed that Iranian seek their civil nuclear program at the time when all reports refer to the non-existence of any nuclear weapons. In the context of his book, Roland Dumas clarified that former French Foreign Minister François Mitterrand had close relations with the "Israelis", even if he wasn't open about it.

On another level, he confirmed that the "Americans did indeed plan to kill Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi through raiding him with planes in the 1986, referring to that France did not allow them to exploit its airspace for that. Gaddafi had thanked France for delaying the arrival of the US drones for more than 15 hours because of the French refusal, which gave Gaddafi time to leave the target place".
Regarding the "Israeli" policy adopted in the region, Dumas stated, "I don't agree with the "Israeli" policy, and I was loyal to the balance principle founded by General Charles de Gaulle in the Middle East. The principle states that the Arab nations also have the right to respect, in addition to that the current "Israeli" policy inspired by activists close to Zionists is not on the right path".

Roland Dumas affirmed that the negotiations between "Israeli" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbass, will not lead to anything. He reiterated that the Palestinian-"Israeli" conflict is unsolvable, where US President Barak Obama stepped back from his pressures and warnings to "Israel" due to the Jewish Lobby pressure surrounding the US President".

Dumas indicated, "Any president or Western official to approach the Palestinian-"Israeli" conflict will collide into the settlers, and that is why they would reach the drastic end where "The solution is found in the absence of any solution".
Roland Dumas also criticized French President Nicolas Sarkuzy's decision to include France in the united leadership of the NATO, believing that Sarkuzy made a big mistake in France's traditional position set by Charles de Gaulle.

MCP discusses the latest terrorism in Norway and how the White Nationalist community was warned years ago that something like this was inevitable if they hitched their fortunes to Jewish interests in jumping on the anti-Islam bandwagon.Download Here

The Norway Massacre–another false flag operation made in Israel or just the natural consequence of Jewish mainstream media’s fomenting of anti-Islamic hysteria? Mark Dankof joins the program to discuss this and other issues.

MCP delves into the latest news coming out of the NYT involving Jewish lawyer David Yerushalmi and the Zionist role in fomenting the anti-Islamic hysteria in the US and Europe that has gripped much of the patriot/white nationalist movement.

Former CIA station chief, present Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, and correspondent for Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative, Dr. Philip Giraldi, joins Mark Glenn and Mark Dankof to discuss Islamophobia, the Norway tragedy, and the prospects for an Israeli attack on Iran.

The mass media is having a field day talking about the fact that a Christian—and so-called “right-wing extremist”—was responsible for the mass murder in Norway. But what the media has carefully played down is the fact that the confessed terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, was a hard-line supporter of Israel, a violent pro-Israeli lunatic (like fanatic John Hagee) lashing out at a government—that of Norway’s Labor Party—he perceived to be hostile to Israel.

This fact casts a new perspective on the event and is one the media would prefer to keep under wraps, particularly those pro-Israeli voices that have helped shape Breivik’s thinking. References to Breivik as blond haired and blue-eyed permeated the media, even including The Washington Post, that, as a matter of political correctness, will not report the race of suspected criminals sought by the police in the nation’s capital. The implicit intent was to focus on white racism rather than pro-Israeli fanaticism.

Apparently, Breivik’s problem with the Labor Party—whose youth camp he targeted—was that he viewed the party as being an enemy of Israel.

In Israel, bloggers hailed Breivik, suggesting the result of his crime was the welcome and God-sanctioned destruction of Israel’s enemies. Breivik urged Europeans to enter into a “pro-Israel, anti-Jihad alliance,” according to the pro-Israel Washington Times, which admitted on July 25 that one of its sources had been in correspondence with the terrorist as far back as July 2009.

But Breivik does not stand alone urging Europeans to align themselves with Israel. In fact, his pro-Israel rhetoric was preceded with similar talk from a number of European nationalists—often referred to as being “right wing”—who find Israel to be a viable ally.

They include—but are not limited to: Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party; Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, who says her movement is now “Zionistic”; Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, who makes regular pilgrimages to Israel; and Filip Dewinter, chairman of the Vlaamas Belang Party in Belgium, who has claimed “Israel is a sort of outpost for our Western society, an outpost of democracy, of freedom of speech, of protecting common values within a hostile environment.”

These Europeans ignore the fact that the Muslims they proclaim to be enemies of Christianity actually revere Jesus Christ as a beloved prophet, as did Mohammad himself. At the same time, they ignore the ugly hostility toward Christianity that is an article of faith in Israel and that has been acknowledged by modern-day Jewish scholars in such recent works as Jesus in the Talmud* by Dr. Peter Schafer and Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence** by Dr. Elliot Horowitz.

While no nationalist anywhere questions the European desire to maintain sovereignty and traditional cultural integrity, many do question whether nationalists in Europe should merge their concerns with those of Israel’s geopolitical ambitions. This is akin to the claim by pro-Israel propagandists who claim that the interests of Israel and those of the United States are the same.

In the wake of 9-11, those propagandists stoked up fears about the so-called rise of Islam and of a purported Muslim population explosion about to overtake the United States and Europe. This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that stimulated Breivik and many others.

However, as far back as Jan. 27, The New York Times let its elite readership in on the big secret: The Muslim population is not accelerating exponentially either in the United States or in Europe or even around the world. The Times was commenting on a study, The Future of the Global Muslim Population, the subject of a joint inquiry by two think tanks, the Pew Research Center and the John Templeton Foundation.

Cryptically entitled “Report offers surprises on Muslims’ growth,” the Times article advised that “predictions that Europe will become a majority Muslim ‘Eurabia’ are unfounded.”

The Times pointed out during the next 20 years the world’s Muslim population is projected to increase from 23.4 percent to 26.4 percent, hardly an “explosion.”

The Times added that “such growth is not enough to create a drastic shift in the world’s religious balance.”

And while many have been convinced by pro-Israeli voices that the Muslim population in Europe is growing by leaps and bounds, the Times revealed that the study found that Muslims in Europe, now making up 6 percent of the population, will only grow to 8 percent by 2030.

The Times noted: “In France and Belgium, Muslims will be about 10 percent of the population in 20 years, and in Britain, 8 percent.”

As far as the United States is concerned, within 20 years Muslims will only constitute 1.7 percent of the American population, described by the Times as “about the equivalent of Jews in the United States today.”

Essentially, the Times was telling its readers: “You really don’t need to worry about Muslim hordes taking over America and instituting Sharia law.”

But that message isn’t reaching the mass audience and it didn’t reach Christian-Zionist soldiers like Breivik, who are marching off to war against Islam.

*Jesus in the Talmud is available fromAFP/FAB for $25 plus $3 S&H.
Call 1-888-699-NEWS toll free to charge.

**Reckless Rites is available from TBR BOOK CLUB for $25 plus $5
S&H. Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge.

There’s nothing “grassroots” about the growing national campaign—some would call it “hysteria”—focusing on the supposed threat of Islamic sharia taking hold in America.

Sharia refers to a code of conduct or laws that have been derived from the Muslim holy book, the Koran, and from the teachings and example of Mohammed. Although some initially condemned AMERICAN FREE PRESS for suggesting that pro-Israeli ideologues have been the primary force behind the constant chatter about “the Muslims” and sharia, no less than The New York Times revealed in a detailed and lengthy story beginning on its front page on July 31 that, in fact, a small, well-financed clique of Israeli lobby intriguers are the source of the agitation. The Times’ revelations speak for themselves:

[The] campaign’s air of grassroots spontaneity,which has been carefully promoted by advocates, shrouds its more deliberate origins. In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56- year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about sharia.

Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Mr.Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country—all with the effect of casting sharia as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the Cold War.

This admission by the Times (and the extensive documentation it provides) should prove embarrassing to a number of otherwise independent-minded American nationalists—including more than a few well-known patriot leaders and figures in the white separatist movement—who have been energetically parroting the anti-Muslim rhetoric promoted by Yerushalmi and his associates, the foremost of whom is Frank Gaffney.

Gaffney’s antecedents alone are revealing and point to the origins of the campaign against sharia and Muslims in general. A ubiquitous longtime advocate for Israel in high level Washington policy-making circles, Gaffney—one of the now infamous neo-conservative “high priests of war”—is the founder of the Center for Security Policy (CSP),which has been described as being known for its support for “extreme right wing Israeli causes.”

Yerushalmi—who spent time in Israel working for a conservative think tank—happens to be the CSP’s general counsel.

Gaffney will be remembered as one of the founding associates of the hard-line pro-Israeli Project for the New American Century, which openly declared the need for a “new Pearl Harbor” to energize and popularize support for American military intervention in the Middle East and around the globe.

In fact, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001—attributed to “the Muslims”—provided that new Pearl Harbor of which Gaffney and his colleagues dreamed.

Going back to the 1970s, Gaffney worked alongside the infamous Richard Perle on the staff of Sen. Henry M. Jackson (DWash.), who was one of Israel’s primary cheerleaders in Congress. They have worked closely ever since, including a stint by Gaffney working under Perle in the Defense Department during the Reagan administration. Perle himself has served on the CSP board of directors as has Morris Amitay, former director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is no coincidence that—at one time or another during the 1980s— Perle and others among his and Gaffney’s close associates—including the late Stephen J. Bryen, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith—were all investigated by the FBI on various matters relating to espionage on behalf of Israel.

Meanwhile, some prominent names in the Republican presidential arena—including Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (whose political ventures have been funded to the tune of millions by Las Vegas gambling kingpin Sheldon Adelson, who calls himself “the richest Jew in the world”)—have all joined in warning about sharia law gaining a stranglehold on the American system.

So while the United States is in freefall with unemployment not going away and healthcare and all manner of public and social services being disrupted— not to mention the collapse of our national infrastructure—Wall Street (which is not controlled by Muslims, by the way) is getting away with looting the economy.

But a growing number of politicians and allied interest groups are pointing toward sharia as the biggest danger facing the American way of life.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SHARIA

Although there are many nations that have predominant Muslim populations and of which there are many that have adopted Islam as the official state religion, all of these “Muslim” nations base their systems of government on secular law, not sharia. This even includes Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population of any nation, and Pakistan, which was founded as an Islamic state.

As for the mistreatment of women, often attributed to Islam and to sharia, all the cases that have been propagandized regarding this issue fail to mention that they have nothing to do with the enforcement of sharia. These incidents are the work of some elements that live in Muslim countries, and their actions are not related to Islamic teachings.

Orthodox Judaism—which many Christians revere—has a history of organized oppression of women, quite readily visible in Israel today and in some Jewish communities in America. This is not so widely publicized in the mass media as are the constant stories relating to alleged Muslim
misdeeds in regard to women.

One can go on the Internet and find countless cases of rape and molestation of women in western countries, but it would be wrong to say they reflect the mindset of the entire community these people come from or perhaps share religious beliefs with. Every year more women are raped in the United States than in any other nation—which is most assuredly not a Muslim-dominated country.

A former U.S. military officer believes there is more to the recent bombing and shooting attack in Norway by a Norwegian who claimed to be allied with some of the most extreme views in Israel

“Following the Oslo bombings and shootings, a number of Hebrew-language websites were experiencing schadenfreude, which is a German word that means taking malicious pleasure in someone else’s misfortune.

While Israeli English sites expressed ‘sympathy’ for Norwegian victims, Hebrew bloggers said Norway got what they deserved for backing Palestine.”

So stated Dr. Alan Sabrosky to this writer during a July 26 interview.

Sabrosky received the U.S. Army War College’s Superior Civilian Service award for his service as director of strategic international studies. Also, as an outspoken critic of Israel’s pivotal role in the 9-11 terror attacks, Sabrosky is well versed in these types of operations.

When analyzing Anders Breivik, Sabrosky began:

“I’m not certain, but it’s my impression that his politics are in the vein of Benjamin Netanyahu and [Israeli Foreign Minister] Avigdor Lieberman. To understand the Israeli political spectrum, their right wing isn’t conservative in an American sense.”

To illustrate the bloodthirsty nature of these Zionist extremists, Sabrosky said of Lieberman: “He’d carry out a policy of ethnic cleansing in a heartbeat. Similar to 9-11, they could easily do these horrific mass murders, much like what happened at Dresden and [Nagasaki] during World War II.”

It may be difficult for most people to understand such inhumane savagery. Sabrosky continued:

“The world view of someone like Avigdor Lieberman is not in our political spectrum. Their mindset—this nuclear-armed state—is rooted in Old Testament books like Deuteronomy and Judges. Akin to The Exodus Song, they say:

‘This land is mine,’ period.”

In regard to the latest terror attacks, when seeing Norway’s prime minister and foreign minister visibly supporting the Palestinian people, those who viewed such actions as a threat unleashed an undeniable ruthlessness.

According to Sabrosky: “Israel sees enemies out there, and they have no problem killing them. At the Labor Youth League camp, they shot up a group that was pro-Palestinian. Breivik wasn’t murdering Norwegian kids because they were Muslims, and they didn’t shoot up a mosque. So, this rampage wasn’t about Islamophobia. It went well beyond that. Norway’s pro-Palestinian position was well known, so this train may have been in motion for quite a while, especially since [Norway’s] prime minister met with Mahmoud Abbas only three days earlier.”

“We have discussed the right-wing extremistIsraeli and Judeo-Christian side of Breivik’snetwork, Israel’s interest in disciplining Norway,and Israel’s celebration of bomb attacks. In thisrespect, Breivik’s attack appears to resemble a newking David Hotel attack: July 22nd,” he said.

Anders Breivik wanted notoriety. He is reported to have stated that he would become the most notorious killer since World War II. Although such an ambition is hardly practicable for one individual, no matter how avid at killing, for someone who preached on the conservative Right taking the ‘high moral ground’, his actions have resulted in the further demonisation and alienation of Rightist ideas. The news media has had a field day in headlining Breivik’s actions as those of someone from the ‘far Right’, and as actions that are a consequence of Rightist ideology. Yet Breivik’ was an avid Zionist, whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarians and ‘neo-conservatives’. He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the ‘clash of civilisations’.

Although the news media has focused on his previous membership in the Progressive Party, his only current organisational affiliation seems to have been with Freemasonry and with his own minuscule – and possibly non-existent - ‘Knights Templar’. His ideological commitment is to Zionism. Why then did not the news media headline Breivik’s atrocity as being that of a ‘Zionist’, a ‘stanch supporter of Israel’, and/or that of a ‘Mason’? Headlines could have read ‘Zionist extremist on shooting spree’; ‘Freemason massacres youngsters at Labour camp in Norway’, and the like.

The Atlantic Wire headlining their article summarising the background of Breivik from several news sources reads: ‘Profile: The Christian Extremist Suspect in Norway’s Massacre’. While focusing on his ‘right wing extremism’ and ‘Christian fundamentalism’, there is a passing reference to his ‘interest’ in Freemasonry.[1] ‘Christian fundamentalism’ has been a focus. While Christian fundamentalists are generally among the staunchest defenders of Israel as reflecting Biblical prophecy, Breivik was in no sense a ‘Christian fundamentalist’, or even a Christian per se. He equates Western Civilisation with ‘Christendom’, and while this is a legitimate principle from a rightist and pan-European perceptive, the media references have again sought to obfuscate Breivik’s ideological commitments. Breivik, in describing the nature of his revived order of Knights Templar, which on his own account, only consisted of a few members worldwide, states that:

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a ‘Christian fundamentalist theocracy’ (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).[2]

Despite the catch-cries about Christianity, Breivik adhered to European secularism and the enlightenment. Such views are more apt for a Freemason than for an advocate of a revived Western Christendom. While he advocated banning the Islamic religion form Europe, he seems to have been totally oblivious to the intrinsically anti-Christian nature of Orthodox Judaism,[3] and while he wrote at length on the supposed enmity between ‘Judaeo-Christianity’ and Islam, he wrote nothing of the anti-Christian record of Israel,[4] including the demolition of Christian holy sites, and the common practice of spitting on Christian clergy in the Holy Land. Although he did recognise historical predominance of Jews in Leftist movements, this was an acknowledgement of the rivalry within Jewry between liberals and leftists on the one side and ‘neo-conservatives’ and ‘right-wingers’ on the other, the latter being considered his best potential allies in the fight against Islam. Breivik is Judaeophilic to the extent that he is Islamophobic, writing in his manifesto:

Regardless of what the Jewish communities motives are I think it’s imperative that they take a stance on multiculturalism and Muslim immigration as soon as humanly possible. They have to recognise that ‘multiculturalism’ is the system that allows Europe to be Islamised and it’s obviously not in their interest to contribute to this. Jews will in a much larger degree start to support the ‘new right’ (just like everyone else), who oppose multiculturalism as a means to stop Islamisation, at least this is my hope. In the back of their minds they realise that a Muslim Europe will be more ‘anti-Semitic’ than a Christian Europe. Muslims don’t have the guilt complex that Europeans have. Many Jews feel they are trapped between the ‘bark and the wood’, they are both sceptical of Muslim immigration on one side and of the nationalist far right wing movements on the other side. Nevertheless, time is off [sic] the essence and it is imperative that the European Jewish community without delay take a stance on the ongoing Islamisation. Neutrality on this issue is not an option. The only way of doing this is to back the new right wing (antimulticulturalism, pro-Israel) groups and political parties (also manifested through views such as by moderate Jewish writers such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or).[5]

Breivik’s opposition to Jewish leftists, as with his opposition to liberals and leftists of any type, is no more antagonistic towards Jews per se than the opposition of Jewish neo-cons towards Jews leftists. The above passage from Breivik is in total accord with the pro-Zionist neo-con party-line, as will be seen.

The New York Times defined Breivik as a ‘right-wing fundamentalist Christian’.[6] The Daily Mail cogently carried the headline: ‘Norwegian massacre gunman was a right-wing extremist who hated Muslims’.[7] Even alternative media such as Global Research have maintained the fiction, carrying an article calling him a ‘Christian fundamentalist’ associated with the ‘extreme Right’. [8]

What is notable is that while there are there passing references to Freemasonry in these articles, there is not a single mention of one of the primary aspects of Breivik’s ideology, pro-Zionism and support for Israel. Although the implication is that Breivik is a ‘neo-nazi’, Breivik emphasised throughout his manifesto his opposition to three ideologies all of which he calls ‘hate’ ideologies: Islam, Marxism and National Socialism. He wrote of Hitler:

The great Satan, his cult and the Jews. Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him. … Hitler almost destroyed everything with his reckless and unforgivable actions and he will forever be known as a traitor to the Nordic-Germanic tribes.[9]

Whether Breivik’s assessment of Hitler’s legacy is legitimate is not the point. Rather, it is a matter that has not been mentioned by the media accounts, any more than his Zionophilia. Classical Liberal

Breivik is not a ‘conservative’ or a traditionalist. He repudiates the traditionalism of Rene Guenon for example, because traditionalists recognise the validity of all remnants of tradition as valuable in a world in decay thanks to the spread of what the neo-cons laud as ‘Western values’. Guenon, as Breivik points out, was a Sufi. European traditionalists and revolutionary conservatives will seek out alliances with other traditionalists in confronting what traditionalist Julius Evola called the ‘revolt against the modern world’.[10] Certain Muslims are more in accord with the aims of Western traditionalists than those neo-cons, plutocrats and Zionists who laud their ‘war against terrorism’ as upholding ‘Western values’. What exactly are these ‘Western values’ that the ‘war on terrorism’, which the USA as the ‘leader of the free world’, seeks to impose on a global basis? What amounts to a global kulturkampf against all traditional values has been most cogently explained by neo-con military strategist Lt. Col. Ralph Peters:

We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent.

There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

Yes, foreign cultures are reasserting their threatened identities - usually with marginal, if any, success--and yes, they are attempting to escape our influence. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure, and you don’t have to die of it to be hindered or crippled in your integrity or competitiveness. The very struggle of other cultures to resist American cultural intrusion fatefully diverts their energies from the pursuit of the future. We should not fear the advent of fundamentalist or rejectionist regimes. They are simply guaranteeing their peoples’ failure, while further increasing our relative strength.[11]

Does the ‘revolutionary conservative’ (a term that Breivik applied to himself) have more in common with the Islamic ‘rejectionist’ regimes, or with the American cultural ‘infection’? That is the question.

Additionally, the opposition to usury and the international debt finance system is a crucial issue that is better understood among Muslims than among Westerners, including nationalists and conservatives, and is also something that traditional Islam has in agreement with the traditional Catholic opposition to usury. Despite the detailed nature of Breivik’s manifesto, he mentions nothing about the central role of international finance, while his attitudes on economics are classical liberal rather than ‘revolutionary conservative’. Those he mentions as ideological influences include: Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, [12] and Hayek. He refers occasionally to Nietzsche, whose attitudes towards Islam would surely not meet with Breivik’s approval.Israel and Islam

Breivik identifies with the Zionist extreme Right. This calls to mind the likes of the Jewish Defense League, Likud, the settler movement, etc. Breivik’s support for the expansion of Israeli borders north and south also reminds one of the ‘Greater Israeli empire’ that has always been a basis of the Zionist ‘extreme right’. He sees Israel as the vanguard in the fight against Islam, writing:

While most people refer to Israel's security fence as a ‘wall’, the fact remains that less than 5 percent of the barrier is actually concrete slab. The rest is a network of fence and sensors. The fence has cut terrorism incidents by more than 90% since its completion. What was the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area? The Security Fence is being built with the sole purpose of saving the lives of the Israeli citizens who continue to be targeted by the terrorist campaign that began in 2000…[13] 1215-

His justification for the ‘security wall’ is the same party line as that of other pro-Zionists, including the neo-con ideologues. The main difference is that Breivik is happy to call this situation ‘apartheid’, while the neo-cons recoil at the word.[14] Was Breivik inspired in his shooting rampage of Norwegian youths more by the example of the Israeli security forces than by the crusader knights? Clash of Civilisations

Breivik is a product of the ‘clash of civilisations’, formulated by neo-con ideologues and used by American and Zionist interests to philosophically justify the so-called ‘war on terrorism’. He is the product of a legacy that is anything but ‘conservative’ in the Western historical sense: an aspiring underground resistance fighter against the Islamic occupation of Europe, who, in other circumstances, would be honoured as a war hero. He sees Islamic laws and customs taking the place of Western laws. The attitude is no different to that of Sarkozy’s attempts to ban the Burka in public. This is not to argue whether Sarkozy’s call for the prohibition is right or wrong; it is merely to observe that Breivik is part of a process that is being legitimised by mainstream politicians in pursuit of pro-Zionist and pro-American agendas in the ‘clash of civilisations’. It is also one of the many areas where Islam, as the remnant of a traditionalist creed that inexorably does come into conflict with the West in its secular-liberal cycle of decline, is an offence not only to neo-con so-called ‘right-wingers’ but also to Western liberals who see it as an offence to feminism and ‘universal human rights’. Hence, an opinion piece in Australia’s Herald Sun quips: ‘Such controls on women’s sexuality are pointless, and that should be condemned along with other mumbo-jumbo still practised across the world’.[15] The liberal secular humanists and the so-called ‘right’ of the neo-con movement both want global uniformity based on so-called ‘Western’ secular values of the type previously described by Ralph Peters as part of a global kulturkampf. Those values, as this instance in regard to the burka indicates, are often similar. It seems to be from the perspective of opposing such global uniformity that the New Right in France in particular, so far from seeking the imposition of ‘Western’ secular values, Sarkozy-style, advocates an ‘identitarian’ approach that eschews cultural assimilation, although this has brought criticism and discord from other elements of the French Right. Breivik stands for a uniform approach to cultural imposition, writing:

Several recent incidents have demonstrated that Muslims are now trying to apply these dhimmi rules to the entire Western world. The most important one was the burning of churches and embassies triggered by the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. This was, down to the last comma, exactly the way Muslims would treat the persecuted non-Muslims in their own countries. The cartoon Jihad indicated that Muslims now felt strong enough to apply sharia rules to Denmark, and by extension NATO.[16]

Again it was symptomatic of the ‘clash of civilisations’. The cartoons published in Denmark were a contrived provocation against Muslims in order to create a climate of tension. It is such strategy of tension that Breivik sought in a more dramatic way. The American neo-con magazine Human Events, which by-lines itself as ‘leading conservative media since 1944’, was among the Western media that republished the cartoons.[17] It is of added interest in that one of those instrumental in the 2006 Muhammad cartoon provocation was Daniel Pipes, cited previously as one of Breivik’s ideological gurus, who he calls a ‘moderate Jewish writer’ along with Bat Ye’or. (...)

It is just this type of alliance between the neo-cons, Zionists and the European so-called ‘right-wing’ that Breivik regards as a basis for the anti-Islamic civil war he hoped to foment in Europe. It is not an isolated phenomenon. The well-publicised English Defence League’s anti-Muslim demonstrations and riots are marked by the number of Israeli flags appearing amidst their shaven headed ranks.[24] Breivik regards the EDL as one of the better organisations, writing:

The British EDL seems to be the first youth organisation that has finally understood this. Sure, in the beginning it was the occasional egg heads who shouted racist slogans and did Nazi salutes but these individuals were kicked out. An organisation such as the EDL has the moral high ground and can easily justify their political standpoints as they publicly oppose racism and authoritarianism.[25]

According to the anti-Zionist former Israeli Gilad Atzmon, the EDL has formed a ‘Jewish Division’, which the London Jewish Chronicle states immediately drew ‘hundreds’ of followers. The Division is led by Roberta Moore, who was interviewed by the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, and boasted of how the ‘Jews were exploiting’ the EDL:

Roberta Moore, aged 39, the leader of the Jewish Division, admitted this week to Ha'aretz that it is ‘actually the Jewish Division that exploits the EDL’. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper on 13 July 2010, she said: ‘They [the EDL] think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish Division. If anything, we are exploiting them’.[26]

Of the previously mentioned Bat Ye’or, a Jewish woman of Egyptian birth, resident in Britain, she specialises in writing of Jewish experiences in Muslim states.[27] Her theme of ‘Eurabia’, is a condemnation of emerging relations between Europe and the Arab states.[28] It is a concept that was taken up by Breivik. Ye’or contends that ‘Eurabia’ is a development of ‘nazi’ and ‘fascist’ origins in alliance with radical Arabs, and has placed European states in a foreign policy position inimical to the interests of both Israel and the USA. In other words, it is indicative of Europe as a ‘third force’. This ‘Eurabia’ was formalised in 1974 in Paris in an association called Euro-Arab Dialogue. Ye’or has outlined her views in many articles, one of which was published in the neo-con National Review.[29] She has attracted the support of neo-cons such as Robert Spencer. From a Western cultural perspective, the concept of Eurabia so abhorred to Ye’or and other neo-cons, plutocrats and Zionists, is hopeful. The relations souring the Arabs states and the West are of intrusive origins and could be addressed diplomatically. The origins of poisoned relations between the West and the Arabs will now be considered. Souring of Arab and Western Relations

Israel has existed for much of its history since 1948 by maintaining the fiction that it is the only reliable state in the Middle East that is Western-orientated amidst a sea of states hostile to ‘Western values’. The dichotomy is misleading. Israel was for the first years of its existence largely a centre of Marxist agitation in the Middle East, and even before the declaration of Israel in 1948, Zionist settlers in Palestine were conveyers of the Marxist creed that has never found fertile ground in any form among the Arabs.[30] Israel is neither pro-Western nor anti-Western; it is pro-Israel, no more and no less. Israel has always played a duplicitous game diplomatically. For example, it has for decades maintained a largely covert relationship with Red China to the point of contravening US restrictions on weapons transfers.[31] As for the souring of relations between the West and the Arabs, this is of a particularly treacherous nature, and is a festering sore that the West has the responsibility to heal.

The origins of this perfidy are in World War I at a time when the Arabs were under Ottoman rule. Zionist hopes for gaining Palestine seemed at the time to rest with Turkey and Germany; while Arab independence rested with the vanquishing of those powers, out of which independent Arab states might emerge. In return for Arab support the Allies led them to believe that independent states would be granted. In 1915 Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, speaking for the Arab world, approached Sir Henry McMahon, British Commissioner in Cairo, offering support for the war against the Turks if Britain would pledge support for Arab independence. Correspondence between the two during 1915 and early 1916 culminated in McMahon’s guarantee of British support for independence within the requested boundaries.[32] However, in the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement’ of 1916 between Britain and France, ‘parts’ of Palestine would be under international administration upon agreement among the Allies and with the Arabs represented by the Sheriff of Mecca.[33] This Anglo-French agreement already had the seeds of duplicity as it gave the two powers control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, reneging on the commitment that had already been given by the British to Sheriff Hussein, and without his knowledge. Lord Curzon remarked that the boundary lines drawn up by the Sykes-Picot agreement indicated ‘gross ignorance’ and he assumed that it was never believed the agreement would be implemented. Prime Minister Lloyd George considered the Sykes-Picot agreement foolish and dishonourable, but it was nonetheless implemented after the Allied victory.[34]

In 1916 the war was going badly for the Allies, and the only hope was to persuade the USA to enter. Sykes approached the War Cabinet with the suggestion that if Palestine was offered as a Jewish homeland, then Jewish sympathy could be mobilised for the Allied cause, and the USA might be induced to join the conflict. US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis used his influence to induce President Wilson to adopt an interventionist policy.[35] In return for Zionist support the British reneged on their promises to the Arabs and secretly promised to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine; a guarantee which became known as the ‘Balfour Declaration’. The machinations were confirmed by Lloyd George to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937, the report of which states that George told the commission that if the Allies supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine the Zionist leaders had promised to ‘rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the allied cause. They kept their word’.[36]

The Arabs, fighting in the field for the Allies, were unaware of the new arrangements that had been reached via the Picot-Sykes agreement and the Balfour Declaration. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia they revealed these secret agreements, but the Arabs continued to fight, due to Allied assurances that neither Sykes-Picot nor the ‘Balfour Declaration’ ‘ would undermine the promises that had been made to them. Among the numerous reiterations of Allied support for the Arab cause, ‘The Anglo-French Declaration’ of 9 November 1918 most plainly stated that France and Britain would support setting up ‘indigenous governments and administrations in Syria (which included Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Iraq).[37] With such assurances the Arab fight against the Turks was of crucial importance to the Allies. These treacherous manoeuvres laid the foundations for the festering Middle East sore that has been aggravated ever since by the slavish attitude the USA and its allies have displayed towards Israel.

Target

This background of Western duplicity towards the Arabs, along with the Zionist wire-pulling, is directly relevant to the present ‘clash of civilisations’, the ‘war on terrorism’, and the Breivik atrocity as a manifestation of these. Leading up to the Breivik massacre of Labour Party youth, the neo-cons had been agitating against the Labour Government that was indicating it would adopt a more strident policy towards Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the youth wing of the party was lobbying for a Norwegian economic boycott of Israel. Joseph Klein, posting on Horowitz’s Front Page Mag two days before Breivik’s rampage, described the Norwegian Government as ‘Quislings’ and called them the ‘the latest example of Norwegian collaboration with the enemies of the Jews’. Is the language any less inflammatory than Breivik’s European Declaration of Independence that the news media and their pundits are scrutinising for signs of ‘right-wing extremism’? Klein stated: ‘Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere declared during a press conference this week, alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that “Norway believes it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinian president to turn to the United Nations” to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state’.[38] An agreement was signed giving Palestine’s representative in Norway full ambassadorial status. Stoere also appealed for financial help for Palestinians. Other transgressions by the Norwegians, according to Klein, include a Labour Member of Parliament stating that Jews exaggerate the Holocaust; ‘socialist leader’ Kristin Halvorsen having participated in an anti-Israel demonstration while serving as minister of finance; the Norwegian Government’s divesting of funds from two Israeli companies in 2010; the claim that ‘anti-Semitism is ‘alive and well’ among the Norwegian political, cultural and academic elite; pro-Hitler sentiments expressed by Muslim students in Norway, and more. Klein stated that part of the reason for this rise in ‘anti-Semitism’ is because of the toleration of multiculturalism by the Norwegian Establishment. He ends by writing: ‘Norway is repeating its Quisling treachery of the Nazi era, this time in league with a growing radical Muslim population. And once again the Jews are the victims’.[39]

A Hebrew website, Rotter, states that two days before the massacre the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party Youth, Eskil Pederson, said in an interview that it was time to end dialogue with Israel and undertake tough measures, including an economic boycott by Norway. The youth at the Labour camp aimed to lobby their party for a boycott. The site describes the Labour youth camp:

48 hours before the shooting attack on the island, the youth met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. Some called for a boycott of Israel.

On Wednesday, the second day of the ruling party youth conference on the island, the youth holiday camp discussed with the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahar Store, and ordered him to support Palestine. About 48 hours later, many of them were killed, Anders Bering Breivik launched a shooting crazy.

Labour Youth Movement demanded recognition of a Palestinian state, and foreign minister have said that the Palestinians get their own state. ‘The occupation must end, the wall should be demolished and it has to happen now,’ said Ghar Store to the audience. Some of the youngsters in the camp waving a placard with the word ‘boycott Israel’. Demanded an economic embargo on Israel. Summer camp ended in the massacre.

Leader, Askyl Pedersen, said that young people require imposition of an economic embargo on Israel. ‘Our policy on the Middle East is to be more active and demand recognition of Palestine. There is also the peace process back on track,’ said Pedersen. The Foreign Minister agreed with him, but said that a boycott is not the right approach: ‘This will make dialogue become a monologue.’ [40]

The media pundits have waxed indignant about the ‘extremists’ who have posted on ‘far Right’ websites in support of Breivik’s actions, Dr Matthew Goodwin, writing for the Telegraph:

Make no mistake: Breivik has already become a heroic figure for sections of the ultra far right, much in the same way Timothy McVeigh became a hero for sections of the militia movement in the United States. In Britain, his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment ideas are easily found in a far-right scene that has become fragmented and chaotic.[41]

Yet it does not seem to have been pointed out that Breivik’s action has generated enthusiasm in Israel. Some of the posts on the Israeli Hebrew website Rotter, state:

· Because I waited with this response until after it became clear that there was indeed a conference which explicitly called for the Boycott of Israel. I am very happy and pleased about the massacre that took place in the camp of the enemies of Israel.· Hitler Youth members killed in the bombing of Germany were also innocent. Let us all cry about the terrible evil bombardment carried out by the Allies…We have a bunch of haters of Israel meeting in a country that hates Israel in a conference that endorses the boycott. So it’s not okay, not nice, really a tragedy for families, and we condemn the act itself, but to cry about it? Come on. We Jews are not Christians. In the Jewish religion there is no obligation to love or mourn for the enemy.· It's stupidity and malice not want the death of those who call to boycott Israel.· I have no sympathy for those who want the destruction of Israel. · Not looking for excuses but it’s not our mourning. Like not mourning at the time the 50 thousand dead in the bombing of Dresden· May all our enemies be paid with such speed. · At least now they have more important things to worry about than Israel. · Maybe we can arrange a badge of honor on behalf of the International Headquarters for Saving People and the Land.[42]

It seems that Breivik’s actions made a lot of ‘sense’ from a pro-Zionist perspective, and the motives have nothing to do with ideologies of the ‘far Right’, and much to do with supporting Israel.Conclusion

The ‘clash of civilisations’ now taking place in the name of the ‘war on terrorism’ is a second ‘Cold War’ foisted upon the world in order to achieve American global hegemony. With the eclipse of the ‘Cold War’ following the implosion of the Soviet bloc, the USA required another world bogeyman to justify its global adventures. The ‘right’ was dragooned into supporting US globalisation during the Cold War under the banner of ‘fighting communism’, ‘defending democracy’, etc. With the conclusion of the anti-Soviet Cold War, these same ideologues undertook a new Cold War, this time against Islam, using the same type of sloganeering. Islamophobia is the new anti-Sovietism, and is serving the same interests. Trotskyites and other Marxists disaffected by the rise of Stalin created the ideological foundations for the Cold War. The so-called ‘neo-conservative’ movement has its origins in Trotskyist anti-Stalinism.[43] Anti-Soviet rhetoric has been altered to apply to the new ‘menace of racial Islam’. The slogan now is ‘Islamofascism’, coined by neo-con ideologue Stephen Schwarz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. Schwartz’s background, like most of the neo-con founders, is as a Trotskyite, and he reiterated to the neo-con magazine National Review that he would defend the legacy of Trotsky to his ‘last breath’.[44] How does this legacy connect with ‘revolutionary conservative’ or the ‘right’? It is a creation of plutocracy, Zionism, post-Trotskyites, and the CIA.

A better option for a revived Western Civilisation, based on genuine ‘Western values’, and for the world, could revolve upon what the neo-cons and their Zionist allies have condemned as ‘Eurabia’. The common enemies are Zionism, US cultural subversion, international finance and concomitant forms of imperialism. Relations between the West and the Arab states were evolving past the very old antagonisms until Zionist machinations entered the scene during World War I. It is not too late to correct the distorted relationships that have occurred between the West and the Arabs, and then an amicable solution can be found to the problems of Muslim immigration. As for Breivik, he is a product of the forces that are inimical to the traditional West.

That
Breivik was a Freemason at the time of the killings is confirmed by his having
been expelled from the Norwegian Order of Freemasons after the event. The
Templar red cross that is carried on the Norwegian Freemasons’ coat-of-arms is
also on the cover of Breivik’s manifesto, A European Declaration of
Independence. See: Ivar A Skar, Sovereign Grand Master, ‘The Norwegian
Order of Freemasons expressing compassion and care’,
http://www.frimurer.no/ordenen/15-aktuelt/1192-the-norwegian-order-of-freemasons-expressing-compassion-and-care

Peters
was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where
he was responsible for future warfare. Prior to becoming a Foreign Area Officer
for Eurasia, he served exclusively at the
tactical level. He is a graduate of the US Army Command and General Staff
College. Over the past several years, his professional and personal research
took Peters to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia,
Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Pakistan,
Turkey, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Mexico, as well as the countries of the
Andean Ridge. He has published widely on military and international concerns.
Peters retired in 1998 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, and continues to
write widely as a novelist, essayist and is a frequent media commentator, which
includes a position as an analyst for Fox News.

It’s the Zionism, Stupid“So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all culturalMarxists/multiculturalists. “--Anders Breivik, Hero of the Muslim Haters

Abbas to meet Norwegian Foreign Minister Palestinian leader President Mahmoud Abbas is in Norway, Monday, for a working lunch with FM Jonas Gahr Støre to discuss the peace process and the current situation in Palestine.COMMENT: What a coincident that Abbas visit to discuss Palestinians issues mainly the ' Palestinian state' with what's happening in Norway.

Something Rotten In Norway Norwegian elite dominated by anti-Israel haters obsessed with Jewish state ~ Manfred Gerstenfeld“People told me when I came to Norway that the country has a long tradition of anti-Semitism. They were wrong. It is not history. It is happening here and now.” Top Harvard lawyer Alan Dershowitz had excellent reasons to make this statement when he visited Norway last week.

As I have said in my othercolumns on this subject, the so-called counter-jihadist milieu – whose writings were copiously cited in the online manifesto – provided the theoretical basis for Breivik’s horrific actions. The “anti-jihadist” pro-Israel blogosphere played an important role in reinforcing and elaborating Breivik’s crazed worldview, and there is even some frightening evidence that they played more of an activist role than that.

“I am running an email I received from an Atlas reader in Norway. It is devastating in its matter-of-factness.

“Well, yes, the situation is worsening. Stepping up from 29 000 immigrants every year, in 2007 we will be getting a total of 35 000 immigrants from somalia, iran, iraq and afghanistan. The nations capital is already 50% muslim, and they ALL go there after entering Norway. Adding the 1.2 births per woman per year from muslim women, there will be 300 000+ muslims out of the then 480 000 inhabitants of that city.

“Orders from Libya and Iran say that Oslo will be known as Medina at the latest in 2010, although I consider this a PR-stunt nevertheless it is their plan.

“From Israel the hordes clawing at the walls of Jerusalem proclaim cheerfully that next year there will be no more Israel, and I know Israel shrugs this off as do I, and will mount a strike during the summer against all of its enemies in the middle east. This will make the muslims worldwide go into a frenzy, attacking everyone around them.

“We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast.

“Before, I thought about emigrating to Britain, Israel, USA, South Africa, etc. for taxes and politics, but instead (although I believe we are the very last generation on earth before the return of God) I will stay and fight for the right to this country and indeed the entire peninsula, for the God-fearing people, just in case this isn’t the end of the world after all. Doesn’t hurt to have a backup plan.

“It’s far from impossible to achieve, after all my people has done it every time before, in feats that match the ancient Greek, hebrew and british ‘legends’.

“Oslo and the southeast may fall easily, but there are other lines than ‘state’-borders drawn across this country since long before there was even a single muslim in the world, and we have held them this long, against everyone else too. We are entering a new golden age for my people, and those of a handful other countrys, but only through struggle.

“Never fear, Pamela. God is with you too in this coming time.”

In the comments, one of Geller’s readers warns that the author of the letter could be prosecuted by Swedish authorities. Geller replies: “Yes … which is why I ran it anonymously.”

So here is some nut stockpiling “weapons, ammunition, and equipment,” because “this is going to happen fast” – with Geller’s enthusiastic encouragement. Indeed, she’s so concerned her correspondent might be arrested that she’s protecting his identity.

Who is Geller’s mystery correspondent – is it the same Norwegian nut-case who ruthlessly cut down dozens of children, or a different one waiting in the wings to do the same? Come on, Pamela – clear up the mystery. Or would you rather continue to shield your fellow “counter-jihadist”?

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the leaders and “scholars” who provided Breivik with the intellectual and political support he needed also provided more substantial support, such as ensuring the confidentiality of communications with the “Knights.” Geller has already gone on the public record as supporting the thugs of the English Defense League, who troll the streets of British cities looking for Muslim victims – why not Breivik?

Little Green Footballs reports that Pam Geller published an e-mail from an unnamed Norwegian anti-jihadi in 2007, which indicated he was planning a major terror attack to dramatize his cause. Geller was so shocked by what he wrote that she called it “devastating in its matter of factness.” She also deliberately concealed the identity of the author in order to protect him from the Norwegian authorities.
Charles Johnson correctly noted the troubling nature of what Geller had done, including a lame attempt to edit out the most offensive portion of the message which reads:
“From Israel the hordes clawing at the walls of Jerusalem proclaim cheerfully that next year there will be no more Israel, and I know Israel shrugs this off as do I, and will mount a strike during the summer against all of its enemies in the middle east. This will make the muslims worldwide go into a frenzy, attacking everyone around them.
We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment.”Read the rest of this entry »

The New York Times traces the source of Republican Party hysteria over Shariah law to a Hasidic Jewish lawyer who lived in the illegal West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim:

A confluence of factors has fueled the anti-Shariah movement, most notably the controversy over the proposed Islamic center near ground zero in New York, concerns about homegrown terrorism and the rise of the Tea Party. But the campaign’s air of grass-roots spontaneity, which has been carefully promoted by advocates, shrouds its more deliberate origins.
In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah.
Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Mr. Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country — all with the effect of casting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war.
The message has caught on. Among those now echoing Mr. Yerushalmi’s views are prominent Washington figures like R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., and the Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, who this month signed a pledge to reject Islamic law, likening it to “totalitarian control.”

A $118 million U.S. federal programme is supposed to help non-profits protect against terror attacks. An investigation by the Jewish Daily Forward, however, found Jewish groups “got most of the cash with no clear link to actual threats.”

In response to an Antiwar Radio interview with Eli Clifton, co-author of the recent Open Society-funded report “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” I posted the following comment:

Does Mr. Clifton have any thoughts on why George Soros might have funded the report? Or on why the report tends to obscure the obvious Israeli source of the Islamophobia network? Or on why it favourably cites the ADL’s criticism of Islamophobic provocateurs like Geller and Spencer, without wondering why one de facto Israeli agent (the ADL) is drawing attention to the provocations of other de facto Israeli agents (Geller, Spencer et al.)?

After a brief appearance on the website, the seemingly offensive comment has disappeared, leaving me to wonder which question Antiwar’s censors were most offended by.

Update: It seems that Antiwar has had second thoughts as my comment has reappeared on the website.

Tarek Ghalayani said he went to Petrol Station, a Houston, Texas, bar on Sunday with a friend to watch the Dallas Cowboys-New York Giants game. But when they decided to watch the second half at home, he ordered a burger to go, and was shocked by what came out of the kitchen.

Anders Breivik’s manifesto reveals a subculture of nationalistic and Islamophobic websites that link the European and American far right in a paranoid alliance against Islam and is also rooted in some democratically elected parties.

The Clarion Fund, an organization which produces Islamophobic documentaries, came under renewed scrutiny last month when news broke that their film “The Third Jihad” was screened at an NYPD conference. Facing calls for his resignation, NYPD commissioner Raymond Kelly, after some dissembling, admitted he was interviewed for the project and apologized for his role, calling the film “inflammatory.” Clarion, however, bragged about the attention.

Now, Clarion appears to be throwing caution to the wind — along with any plausible defense that the group is not Islamophobic — by promoting a comment from a reader seeking to redeem the views of the anti-Muslim right-wing extremist who terrorized Norway this summer, killing 77, including 69 people at a youth camp. In an e-mail newsletter to supporters, Clarion Fund quoted the reader suggesting that a recent report that militant Islamic extremism posed the top threat to Norway redeemed the unheralded warnings of Anders Breivik, the anti-Muslim killer.

The newsletter, published by the organization’s radicalislam.org website, promoted the comment from a “reader in Norway.” It read:

What a hot current topic this is! Just today the news came out in Norway, “officially” and in spite of all the PC-ness of this government, that according to the national security forces, the threat of Islamist terrorism is the foremost threat against Norway. You probably remember the July 22 shootings. One of Breivik’s arguments was that the authorities were not taking this threat seriously because you musn’t offend a Muslim. Interesting development.

Clarion’s willingness to promote and publish an e-mail sympathetic to Breivik seems a bizarre move for an organization under fire for Islamophobia, especially when the comment obfuscates the bigoted point Breivik was making about Islam at-large — the very same conflation between extremism and the whole faith the Clarion Fund has repeatedly been accused of making.

Breivik’s warnings did not focus on Muslim extremism, but rather on Islam at-large. Breivik’s1,500-page manifesto is littered with comments about Islam in general, for instance arguing that the Muslim veil “should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement.” He called Islam a “totalitarian, racist and violent political ideology,” and said its holy book, the Koran, should be banned. Breivik’s warning was not about, as the reader wrote, “Islamist terrorism,” but about Islam:

What is likely to happen to the West, if it continues to follow its present policyof ‘political correctness’ and apathy towards the hostile teachings of Islam, [will be like] “the Islamic conquest of India…”

“In order to wake up the masses,” the soon-to-be killer wrote before attacking government offices and a political youth camp, “the only rational approach will be to make sure the current system implodes.”

Breivik went on in his manifesto to cite the writings of numerous American right-wing Islamophobes and recommended the Clarion Fund’s film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” for “further studies.” He even included a link to it.

While the Norwegian security services’ report did indeed cite Islamic-inspired extremism as the country’s top threat, that assessment actually proves Breivik’s assertion wrong: Norwegian authorities seem rather well-attuned to the serious threat posed by the few radicalized, extremist Muslims in Norway.

Despite the citations, Clarion is not, of course, responsible for Breivik’s attack. But by singling out and publishing a reader comment that whitewashed and sought to exonerate Breivik’s murderous ideology, the Clarion Fund may be tipping their hand as to how closely their views dovetail with his. (HT: Demographics United)

‘During the 2000s Sweden took in more Iraqi refugees than any other Western nation, reaching a peak of 18,559 in 2007.’

‘According to the Migration
Board nearly 11,000 Syrians have obtained asylum in Sweden since 2012
and the figure is expected to rise.’

So, for all those white nationalist types grumbling over
the fact that ‘non whites’ are ‘invading’ white lands, but at the same
time deny that the wars being fought and funded by white countries
against those in the Middle East have anything to do with this problem,
please explain then why–as this piece indicated–there are almost 20,000
Iraqi refugees and (as of this moment) 11,000 Syrians in Sweden fleeing
those countries?

As we have said many times,
the grumbling that takes place on the part of these white nationalist
types is not rooted in their real desire to see things turn around, for
if it were, they would concentrate their efforts to bring an end to the
wars that are the cause of the immigration problems in the first place.

(...)Next month, she will travel to
Holland to form a joint campaign with Geert Wilders, whose anti-Islamic
Partij voor Vrijheid (PVV) is currently part of that country’s ruling
coalition and also tops national opinion polls for May’s European
elections. (...)
While forming alliances with more
mainstream nationalist European parties like Holland’s PVV and Belgium’s
Vlaams Belang, Ms. Le Pen stays clear of far-right nationalist parties.
She has insisted on not having the NF labeled as a far-right party
and has distanced herself from nationalist parties like Greece’s Golden
Dawn (GD) and Hungary’s Jobbik parties, which she condemns as “Nazi” and
“anti-Semitic.” Unlike the British National Party’s Nick Griffin,
who publicly supported the Golden Dawn during their recent persecution,
Ms. Le Pen has gone as far as to say that it was “unfair to be lumped
together with the likes of Norwegian mass-killer Anders Breivik and
Greece’s Golden Dawn.” Critics have claimed that Ms. Le Pen might
be overly allied with Zionists due to the fact that her boyfriend and
FN vice president, Louis Aliot, as well as Geert Wilders, are both of
Jewish backgrounds. Wilders is a known Zionist sympathizer, who travels
to Israel several times a year. (...)